RE: Coastal Defense Guns (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

bradfordkay -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 7:33:54 AM)

"In contrast, American/Allied amphibious landings were massively supported by naval gunfire and air bombardment. The firepower brought to these landing appears to have been sufficient to suppress the relatively light weight coast defense artillery at the landing sites in every case (~100-150mm). Though the guns themselves may have survived until overrun by ground forces they were unable by their own fire to seriously impede the landing of those ground forces and supplies. I the only instance I know of wherein the USN engaged a coastal defense fort system (Cherbourg in 44) I believe the USN was unable to suppress the heavy guns therein and took some significant damage to the engaging ships. In that instance(s) no landing was attempted however; the USN/RN ships merely trying to support an advance by friendly forces on the landward side of the fortress."


At the Normandy landings, the sheer size of the allied invasion overwhelmed the coastal defenses. IIRC, there were several allied ships (not to mention landing craft) sunk on June 6 and many damaged. The Cherbourg example was another case of a coastal defense system performing quite well. They can cause significant damage to invasion fleets, and if the fleet is small enough they should be able to defeat it (Wake Is).



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 7:42:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"In contrast, American/Allied amphibious landings were massively supported by naval gunfire and air bombardment. The firepower brought to these landing appears to have been sufficient to suppress the relatively light weight coast defense artillery at the landing sites in every case (~100-150mm). Though the guns themselves may have survived until overrun by ground forces they were unable by their own fire to seriously impede the landing of those ground forces and supplies. I the only instance I know of wherein the USN engaged a coastal defense fort system (Cherbourg in 44) I believe the USN was unable to suppress the heavy guns therein and took some significant damage to the engaging ships. In that instance(s) no landing was attempted however; the USN/RN ships merely trying to support an advance by friendly forces on the landward side of the fortress."


At the Normandy landings, the sheer size of the allied invasion overwhelmed the coastal defenses. IIRC, there were several allied ships (not to mention landing craft) sunk on June 6 and many damaged. The Cherbourg example was another case of a coastal defense system performing quite well. They can cause significant damage to invasion fleets, and if the fleet is small enough they should be able to defeat it (Wake Is).


Size will only adversely distort the situation in the game...the more ships in the invasion TF the merrier for the CD guns as they fire on each enemy ship. Having multiple TFs simply exascerbates this further, as this just provides more ships to shoot at. CD guns don't have ops maximums it seems. A CD gun can potentially do as much damage to 1 thousand ships as it can do to one. Seems amazing how designs like this can make it into release.



bradfordkay -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 8:08:35 AM)

This has long been a problem with computer grand strategy games. Every unit in a battle fights every other unit. It's a tendency I hated at first and have since grown to begrudgingly accept. I'm waiting for someone to break the mold...



el cid again -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 1:59:03 PM)

quote:

Size will only adversely distort the situation in the game...the more ships in the invasion TF the merrier for the CD guns as they fire on each enemy ship. Having multiple TFs simply exascerbates this further, as this just provides more ships to shoot at. CD guns don't have ops maximums it seems. A CD gun can potentially do as much damage to 1 thousand ships as it can do to one. Seems amazing how designs like this can make it into release.


I respectfully submit I do not think this is true. It is not my experience. I often am disappointed in CD performance. In stock I saw Manila and Singapore fall in a day or two - with minimal damage to my ships - in spite of 14 inch (Manila) and 15 inch (Singapore) CD guns. Certainly this is not my experience in UV. It is quite normal for action not to involve any but a tiny fraction of potential target ships. At least if you go in at night.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 2:10:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roman Jr.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Size will only adversely distort the situation in the game...the more ships in the invasion TF the merrier for the CD guns as they fire on each enemy ship. Having multiple TFs simply exascerbates this further, as this just provides more ships to shoot at. CD guns don't have ops maximums it seems. A CD gun can potentially do as much damage to 1 thousand ships as it can do to one. Seems amazing how designs like this can make it into release.


I have some evidence that may indicate that this is not the case, or at least not as extreme as you portray it. My CD guns bombarded 2 TFs, and the 2nd TF received much less fire than the first (I had 3 units with CD/Field guns):

Coastal Guns at Naga, 44,54, firing at TF 33
TF 33 troops unloading over beach at Naga, 44,54


325 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
DD Yugumo, Shell hits 3, on fire
PG Seisho Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Osaka Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Niitaka Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Heian Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Gokoku Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire

Japanese ground losses:
1282 casualties reported
Guns lost 5

Allied ground losses:
30 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Naga, 44,54, firing at TF 74
TF 74 troops unloading over beach at Naga, 44,54


8 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese ground losses:
138 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1



It may be a little more complicated than sheer number of ships. The number of guns firing at the ships may also have something to do with the amount of squads being unloaded during the unload phase. In your case, all were loaded so a large portion of the 325 guns fired were directed at the troops in the landing craft (in lieu of this at the APs). In the second round most of the troops were off the APs (perhaps only a small percentage of APs now had troops to unload and only small amount) so volume of fire was mathematically reduced.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 9:56:30 PM)

Here is another example of complete nonsense courtesy of 2ndACRs PBEM. I don't care if this was an Alastair MacLean novel, this is ridiculous. I picked this colour because it is as annoying as this game can be. What gets me is that the majority just accept it. No wonder games never improve.

Naval bombardment of Lunga, at 67,97 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

388 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
DD Le Triomphant, Shell hits 39, on fire, heavy damage SUNK
DD Voyager, Shell hits 46, on fire, heavy damage SUNK
DD Stuart, Shell hits 39, on fire, heavy damage SUNK
CL Perth, Shell hits 27
CL Achilles, Shell hits 15
CL Leander, Shell hits 42, on fire
CA Canberra, Shell hits 34, on fire, heavy damage WIll SINK .. 86/80 damage
CA Australia, Shell hits 16

Japanese ground losses:
69 casualties reported
Guns lost 3



2ndACR -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 10:02:50 PM)

Ron, just so everyone knows...............I packed that base and set a trap, because everyone try's to bombard Lunga when it is captured.

I placed a CD gun equipped base force, and 2 CD gun units. All had upgraded and had not a single 3 inch gun left. I also packed 15,000 supply into that base. I based a Mavis unit there also.

He faced roughly 100 coastal defense guns and they knew he was coming. Spotted the previous day by air recon about 3 hexes out.

I was hoping that they would fire alot more shots, but that was good enough for me. Also the smallest CD gun there was a 4.7 DP gun. each CD unit had 34 of these IIRC.

edited because of typo, should have been 3 inch gun and not a 2 inch gun.



dereck -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 10:08:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Here is another example of complete nonsense courtesy of 2ndACRs PBEM. I don't care if this was an Alastair MacLean novel, this is ridiculous. I picked this colour because it is as annoying as this game can be. What gets me is that the majority just accept it. No wonder games never improve.

Naval bombardment of Lunga, at 67,97 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

388 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
DD Le Triomphant, Shell hits 39, on fire, heavy damage SUNK
DD Voyager, Shell hits 46, on fire, heavy damage SUNK
DD Stuart, Shell hits 39, on fire, heavy damage SUNK
CL Perth, Shell hits 27
CL Achilles, Shell hits 15
CL Leander, Shell hits 42, on fire
CA Canberra, Shell hits 34, on fire, heavy damage WIll SINK .. 86/80 damage
CA Australia, Shell hits 16

Japanese ground losses:
69 casualties reported
Guns lost 3



AND despite the statement in Morrison's History of United States Naval Operations in World War II where he states that Japanese coastal defense guns were ineffective throughout the war. I guess historical facts don't have a place in this game (especially when there are SO many Japanese revisionists here who want their delusions rather than historical fact despite their claims and cries for historical accuracy).



Feinder -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 10:09:15 PM)

From my own "obserational evidence" (therefor subjective), supply is the critical element with CD guns. The more supply, the more they shoot. If you've got 20k supply at a base, you're gonna get a lot of pounding by the CD guns. With "normal" supply, they shoot a lot less. With no supply, you don't get much out of them at all.

I'm not saying that's correct. I'm just saying that's what I see.

-F-



Mynok -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 11:06:09 PM)


quote:

He faced roughly 100 coastal defense guns and they knew he was coming. Spotted the previous day by air recon about 3 hexes out.


100 guns........3.8 shots per gun over a 12 hour period? Seems a little low to me .... [:D]

Seriously, perhaps it is the to-hit percentage that is too high, because that number of shots doesn't seem unreasonable for the time period in question.



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 11:40:51 PM)

Well if someone is trying to fight coast batteries with destroyers from close range (escorts bombard on) ... well he get what he asked for. In real life (despite some US revisionists here who want their delusions rather than historical fact) all those attempt were carried after several air raids, from long range and with use of BBs and not DDs at least at first stage of bombardment.

PS. Turn "Escorts bombards" (or something similliar) off.



dereck -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 11:48:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Well if someone is trying to fight coast batteries with destroyers from close range (escorts bombard on) ... well he get what he asked for. In real life (despite some US revisionists here who want their delusions rather than historical fact) all those attempt were carried after several air raids, from long range and with use of BBs and not DDs at least at first stage of bombardment.

PS. Turn "Escorts bombards" (or something similliar) off.


The thing about the "US Revisionists" is we use historical books and facts for the majority of our statements while the "Jap Revisionists" can only be on something when they make their claims.

In reading Morrison's History of United States Naval Operations in World War II there were PLENTY of examples in the Solomons of US destroyers and light cruisers taking an (and OUT) Jap coastal batteries and receiving very little damage, if any. BUT according to some people they should have got sunk each time. Please note I refered ONLY to the Solomon Islands so I am not claiming destroyers could/should take on all coastal batteries everywhere all the time.

I'm only stating that, unlike some claims that they never could without getting sunk, they DID and that the Japanese coast defense guns were called, by Morrison, "ineffective" throughout the war.



bilbow -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 11:49:13 PM)


[/quote]

AND despite the statement in Morrison's History of United States Naval Operations in World War II where he states that Japanese coastal defense guns were ineffective throughout the war. I guess historical facts don't have a place in this game (especially when there are SO many Japanese revisionists here who want their delusions rather than historical fact despite their claims and cries for historical accuracy).
[/quote]

And just how many times does Morrison say the USN bombarded major undisupted CD gun units with DDs?



dereck -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 11:57:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bilbow




AND despite the statement in Morrison's History of United States Naval Operations in World War II where he states that Japanese coastal defense guns were ineffective throughout the war. I guess historical facts don't have a place in this game (especially when there are SO many Japanese revisionists here who want their delusions rather than historical fact despite their claims and cries for historical accuracy).


And just how many times does Morrison say the USN bombarded major undisupted CD gun units with DDs?


I don't know but the point I'm trying to make which gets me so ***** off are the Jap fan-boys who would have the US not being able to do anything and state it as fact.

These are facts that you can believe or not but I (and many others do)
1. Destroyers DID take on coastal batteries at times (there were MANY times in both Europe and the Pacific where destroyers moved in so close to shore they sometimes beached themselves duelling with coast batteries and for the most part WINNING).
2. Japanese coastal defense guns were considered ineffective throughout the war (though this game probably has them as being very effective).
3. Even though none were ever fired in anger (as far as I know) American coastal guns were probably just as ineffective (but this game probably DOES have them being ineffective).



bilbow -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 12:21:50 AM)

"Undisrupted" is the key word in my comment. IRL there were close-in successful actions, but only after days of heavy gun bombardment and air strikes, something Ron apparently did not do against 2ndACR. So is the game the problem, or is it tactics?




dereck -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 12:26:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bilbow

"Undisrupted" is the key word in my comment. IRL there were close-in successful actions, but only after days of heavy gun bombardment and air strikes, something Ron apparently did not do against 2ndACR. So is the game the problem, or is it tactics?




As hokey as this game is my money is on GAME problem. Just another grain in the sandy beach of problems.



2ndACR -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 12:33:16 AM)

These were completely new units. Not a single air strike, bombardment or anything. Vey low fatigue/disruption (malaria base).

Ron was not the victim here. This happens. I have had CD guns fire very little of be very ineffective during an invasion. I have not a problem with this result or really any of the results of being on the recieving end.



bilbow -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 1:22:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

These were completely new units. Not a single air strike, bombardment or anything. Vey low fatigue/disruption (malaria base).

Ron was not the victim here. This happens. I have had CD guns fire very little of be very ineffective during an invasion. I have not a problem with this result or really any of the results of being on the recieving end.


It's certainly the result I would expect under these circumstances, and plan for.



Rob Brennan UK -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 1:26:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Well if someone is trying to fight coast batteries with destroyers from close range (escorts bombard on) ... well he get what he asked for. In real life (despite some US revisionists here who want their delusions rather than historical fact) all those attempt were carried after several air raids, from long range and with use of BBs and not DDs at least at first stage of bombardment.

PS. Turn "Escorts bombards" (or something similliar) off.


I am that idiot [:'(]

Having lost count of the number of times i've reminded others to do the very same thing i forgot ! .. As a weak defence they were on a surface tf interception of some jap cl/dd group initially and only after that left did i switch to bombard ..

with what happened next it was a moot point anyway as 2ndACR ambushed mt badly with teh CV's .. so would have sunk regardless.

valuable lesson learnt the hard way (again).. one of thses days i'll practise what i preach[:D][:D]



el cid again -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 1:38:38 AM)

quote:

Here is another example of complete nonsense courtesy of 2ndACRs PBEM. I don't care if this was an Alastair MacLean novel, this is ridiculous. I picked this colour because it is as annoying as this game can be. What gets me is that the majority just accept it. No wonder games never improve.


I have big time complaints about lots of things in WITP - but not this one.
Why is your result outlandish? How many guns were present? Was this a night raid or an invasion, or what? We cannot understand what is reported without context. But if there were enough CD units, and if you were there the whole turn, this may be a proper result.



el cid again -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 1:40:25 AM)

quote:

Ron, just so everyone knows...............I packed that base and set a trap, because everyone try's to bombard Lunga when it is captured.

I placed a CD gun equipped base force, and 2 CD gun units. All had upgraded and had not a single 3 inch gun left. I also packed 15,000 supply into that base. I based a Mavis unit there also.

He faced roughly 100 coastal defense guns and they knew he was coming. Spotted the previous day by air recon about 3 hexes out.


Then the result is quite reasonable - and nothing is broken.



el cid again -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 1:44:19 AM)

quote:


100 guns........3.8 shots per gun over a 12 hour period? Seems a little low to me ....

Seriously, perhaps it is the to-hit percentage that is too high, because that number of shots doesn't seem unreasonable for the time period in question.


Do not read "shots" as "one shell." A "mineshot" is 8 mines, for example. A torpedo shot is usually 4, and may be 2, 4 or 6 torpedoes, or some other value (e.g. an air group with torpedoes drops one or even two per plane). Rapid fire guns fire hundreds of rounds per minute. Naval and CD guns fire several to several tens. A shot is a multiple thing. Hit rates are on the order of 2-5% at point blank range but well under 1% at long range.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 4:04:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Ron, just so everyone knows...............I packed that base and set a trap, because everyone try's to bombard Lunga when it is captured.

I placed a CD gun equipped base force, and 2 CD gun units. All had upgraded and had not a single 3 inch gun left. I also packed 15,000 supply into that base. I based a Mavis unit there also.

He faced roughly 100 coastal defense guns and they knew he was coming. Spotted the previous day by air recon about 3 hexes out.

I was hoping that they would fire alot more shots, but that was good enough for me. Also the smallest CD gun there was a 4.7 DP gun. each CD unit had 34 of these IIRC.

edited because of typo, should have been 3 inch gun and not a 2 inch gun.


That's why I said "I don't care if it is an Alistair MacLean novel." The rate of fire, accuracy vs moving targets and ability of all guns to fire, not just dedicated CD guns, is ridiculous in no uncertain terms. Give me an example of cruisers being pounded by CD batteried in WW2. Do ships just sit and take it? Do they not move? Do they not fire back?



treespider -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 4:11:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Ron, just so everyone knows...............I packed that base and set a trap, because everyone try's to bombard Lunga when it is captured.

I placed a CD gun equipped base force, and 2 CD gun units. All had upgraded and had not a single 3 inch gun left. I also packed 15,000 supply into that base. I based a Mavis unit there also.

He faced roughly 100 coastal defense guns and they knew he was coming. Spotted the previous day by air recon about 3 hexes out.

I was hoping that they would fire alot more shots, but that was good enough for me. Also the smallest CD gun there was a 4.7 DP gun. each CD unit had 34 of these IIRC.

edited because of typo, should have been 3 inch gun and not a 2 inch gun.


That's why I said "I don't care if it is an Alistair MacLean novel." The rate of fire, accuracy vs moving targets and ability of all guns to fire, not just dedicated CD guns, is ridiculous in no uncertain terms. Give me an example of cruisers being pounded by CD batteried in WW2. Do ships just sit and take it? Do they not move? Do they not fire back?



I have to agree with Ron on this. That's not to say that the same units with month's to prepare couldn't do the same.

What I see problematic is that the units show up on Sunday, Travel to their assign area -Monday, Set up camp- tuesday, Determine fields of fire -Wednesday, Eat lunch Thursday, Kick ass on friday.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 4:14:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Here is another example of complete nonsense courtesy of 2ndACRs PBEM. I don't care if this was an Alastair MacLean novel, this is ridiculous. I picked this colour because it is as annoying as this game can be. What gets me is that the majority just accept it. No wonder games never improve.


I have big time complaints about lots of things in WITP - but not this one.
Why is your result outlandish? How many guns were present? Was this a night raid or an invasion, or what? We cannot understand what is reported without context. But if there were enough CD units, and if you were there the whole turn, this may be a proper result.


You ever in the artillery? No? I was. I don't care who you are, you can't hit moving targets like ships with this kind of accuracy with undirected fire. Man, it was hard enough doing direct fire open actions vs static targets in an impact area. I don't agree with correcting one wrong (ability to use naval bombardments like strategic nuclear bomber forces against bases) with another (turning every gun in an LCU into dedicated coast defence fortifications and then allowing these same fortifications to trade shots with ships better than other ships can).

Another one of the problems with the design which is at the heart of this is not having conceived of a way to hit troops in landing craft eminating from transports...this is why all the transports are being pounded to snot during landings.



dereck -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 4:34:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Here is another example of complete nonsense courtesy of 2ndACRs PBEM. I don't care if this was an Alastair MacLean novel, this is ridiculous. I picked this colour because it is as annoying as this game can be. What gets me is that the majority just accept it. No wonder games never improve.


I have big time complaints about lots of things in WITP - but not this one.
Why is your result outlandish? How many guns were present? Was this a night raid or an invasion, or what? We cannot understand what is reported without context. But if there were enough CD units, and if you were there the whole turn, this may be a proper result.


You ever in the artillery? No? I was. I don't care who you are, you can't hit moving targets like ships with this kind of accuracy with undirected fire. Man, it was hard enough doing direct fire open actions vs static targets in an impact area. I don't agree with correcting one wrong (ability to use naval bombardments like strategic nuclear bomber forces against bases with another (turning every gun in an LCU into dedicated coast defence fortifications and then allowing these same fortifications to trade shots with ships better than other ships can).



Ron, you have to remember the Japanese are superhuman warriors who can use their "mystic powers" to achieve anything. Haven't you been reading this forum for the past year or so to know that by now?



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 4:39:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Here is another example of complete nonsense courtesy of 2ndACRs PBEM. I don't care if this was an Alastair MacLean novel, this is ridiculous. I picked this colour because it is as annoying as this game can be. What gets me is that the majority just accept it. No wonder games never improve.


I have big time complaints about lots of things in WITP - but not this one.
Why is your result outlandish? How many guns were present? Was this a night raid or an invasion, or what? We cannot understand what is reported without context. But if there were enough CD units, and if you were there the whole turn, this may be a proper result.


You ever in the artillery? No? I was. I don't care who you are, you can't hit moving targets like ships with this kind of accuracy with undirected fire. Man, it was hard enough doing direct fire open actions vs static targets in an impact area. I don't agree with correcting one wrong (ability to use naval bombardments like strategic nuclear bomber forces against bases with another (turning every gun in an LCU into dedicated coast defence fortifications and then allowing these same fortifications to trade shots with ships better than other ships can).



Ron, you have to remember the Japanese are superhuman warriors who can use their "mystic powers" to achieve anything. Haven't you been reading this forum for the past year or so to know that by now?



The design works both ways though. This is not simply a bias, it is just a universal wrong. I must agree with you on this in other areas like leaders, failure to differentiate between Japanese and Allied CAP and unwarranted Japanese air strike coordination bonuses etc.



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 4:44:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck
The thing about the "US Revisionists" is we use historical books and facts for the majority of our statements while the "Jap Revisionists" can only be on something when they make their claims.

The thing about the "Jap Revisionists" is we use historical books and facts for the majority of our statements while the "Jap Revisionists" uses only Morrison.

quote:


In reading Morrison's History of United States Naval Operations in World War II there were PLENTY of examples in the Solomons of US destroyers and light cruisers taking an (and OUT) Jap coastal batteries and receiving very little damage, if any.

If Morrison write about destroyers attacking from short range heavy defended and well prepared to defence base, like Truk or Rabaul - he is definetly wrong. Nothing of that ever happened.

quote:


Japanese coast defense guns were called, by Morrison, "ineffective" throughout the war.


New game? Instead of Simon says, now we have SE Morrison says?



dereck -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 4:48:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
The design works both ways though. This is not simply a bias, it is just a universal wrong. I must agree with you on this in other areas like leaders, failure to differentiate between Japanese and Allied CAP and unwarranted Japanese air strike coordination bonuses etc.



And if you'll notice in a post I put previously I stated this:

quote:


2. Japanese coastal defense guns were considered ineffective throughout the war (though this game probably has them as being very effective).
3. Even though none were ever fired in anger (as far as I know) American coastal guns were probably just as ineffective (but this game probably DOES have them being ineffective).


I freely admit that on both sides the CD probably should be just as ineffective.

My main gripe here is it only would seem to be a MAJOR problem if it was Allied CD guns inflicting such damage on Japanese ships according to some. It seems that about the only "changes" made to this game benefit one side (who will remain nameles ... JAPAN) to the detriment of the other side and/or historical accuracy.



2ndACR -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/16/2006 4:54:49 AM)

Well, my units were prepped to 45. Started them prepping on day 1 of the war. They had been at the base about 7 days when the attack happened.

I was spent a year in an artillery battalion and have practiced and seen artillery fire on moving targets. (battle of 73 easting GW1). Artillery can hit moving targets. It is a matter of volume of fire as much as it is accuracy. Bracket the target at the right range and bang away in rapid fire mode.

Maybe he had a super aggressive commander in the TF who decided to slug it out and complete his mission of bombarding the target regardless of the danger. Maybe he thought that "no cd gun can hurt me, I am in a CA). Guess he got proved wrong.[:-]

This works both ways, so I am not concerned with this.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.96875